Natural Law

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Peggy in Burien,

I certainly don’t mean to make light of your pro-life convictions. I just want to get to the basic moral/ethical issues involved. Maybe God allows differences of opinion as long as we have the same goal of trying to help our families and our fellowmen, but I don’t know. Although there are absolutes, He considers our culpability regarding our actions and choices. Here’s the way I see it.

Seeing the doctor was concerned about the fate of the unborn children in their mothers’ womb that they not suffer the excruciating pain from torture and experiments of the Nazi’s (and rightly so IFshe knew specifically that was the case), why did the good doctor not consider the terrible torture the women would have to go through as well and kill them before they could suffer excruciating pain? Or was she ordered to kill the babies or be killed herself, but she chose the easier way out? I don’t know her motives, of course, but if the logic is taken to its end, we could say, she (anyone sympathetic) should have killed all the Jews, and others, going to be used as experiments? Or not knowing who was scheduled for the gas chambers or torture, should she euthanize all, although not all would be chosen for torture. That’s the reasoning behind the “culture of death”, the pro-choicers who want to prevent unwanted babies suffering from want and abuse (even though they don’t know in advance just what these children may or may not suffer). Also, we don’t know how God may play a role in minimizing suffering. To me it looks like the doctor was playing God. Whether she realized it or not is another question.

As for your family situation, I can’t comment on that because I don’t know the situation, but I would say that it’s imperative to save someone rather than consider someone’s
“confidence.” But, like I said, I can’t judge anyone’s actions. All I can do is give my opinion.

I think the doctor’s situation was very different than anything a doctor faces today. She did what she felt was moral in her situation. She was not Christian, but Jewish. She did this from a conviction of her heart, after much prayer. Later, she did everything she could to save babies, she claimed to “make up” for the ones she had aborted.

I brought this up, to show that these hypothetical situations that are being posted here, do sometimes happen in real life. I was merely putting a “real face” on a particular, horrible situation, and telling what had happened in one case.

I do not want to fight out the abortion issue with anybody. I would die before I would ever have one, and I even have a very hard time keeping friendships with people who have had or have procured abortions, even long before I met them. Even when they have confessed their sins and been forgiven. I went to a great deal of effort to avoid a certain military doctor, because he performed abortions, and I did not want him to deliver my baby, with hands that had killed others for convenience.

What I meant by my posting is that it is easy for us all to sit here discussing the hypothetical ideas, like we did when we were in school. It is much harder to do these things in real life. I am not saying that we ignore God’s Law, not at all. I lost my job two years ago for ethical reasons, because I have very strict scruples. However, it is not our places to judge what is in another person’s heart. Only God can do that. I am only putting myself into another person’s shoes, so as to understand why someone would do what they do when the hypothetical becomes real.

 

[4Horsemen]

What I meant by my posting is that it is easy for us all to sit here discussing the hypothetical ideas, like we did when we were in school. It is much harder to do these things in real life. I am not saying that we ignore God’s Law, not at all. I lost my job two years ago for ethical reasons, because I have very strict scruples. However, it is not our places to judge what is in another person’s heart. Only God can do that. I am only putting myself into another person’s shoes, so as to understand why someone would do what they do when the hypothetical becomes real.

You are in good company. Actually, the Church says we are to listen to our conscience, but our conscience should be well informed. An article in today’s Chicago Tribune reports that Pope Benedict is in favor of allowing prostitutes (there was a question whether he said male or female) to use condoms. This tells Christians that there are exceptions to observance of the Natural Law if done for a cause to promote a higher value or necessary condition.

I’d like to hear other opinions on this, especially someone well-versed in theology.

 

[John21652]

You are in good company. Actually, the Church says we are to listen to our conscience, but our conscience should be well informed. An article in today’s Chicago Tribune reports that Pope Benedict is in favor of allowing prostitutes (there was a question whether he said male or female) to use condoms. This tells Christians that there are exceptions to observance of the Natural Law if done for a cause to promote a higher value or necessary condition.

I’d like to hear other opinions on this, especially someone well-versed in theology.

Be proactive and go further than a source such as the Chicago Tribune. Perhaps try a web site such as Catholic World Report, where you can read exactly what he had to say.

And this is part of what he had to say -

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

In other words, if an HIV infected homosexual should use a condom, it may be a prelude to a moral awakening, Obviously male homosexuality is disorderd according to Natural Law, but if that disorder is assuaged by the use of a condom, then perhaps there is a slight improvement in that individuals moral behaviour and attitude.

There is a thread devoted to that specific topic **Pope says condoms sometimes permissible to stop AIDS **

 

[John21652]

I think the doctor’s situation was very different than anything a doctor faces today. She did what she felt was moral in her situation. She was not Christian, but Jewish. She did this from a conviction of her heart, after much prayer. Later, she did everything she could to save babies, she claimed to “make up” for the ones she had aborted.

Could it not be argued that this woman buckled under the situation she found herself in and so did what she did to make herself feel better? In other words, she abandoned all hope because she saw none?

 

[4Horsemen]

Be proactive and go further than a source such as the Chicago Tribune. Perhaps try a web site such as Catholic World Report, where you can read exactly what he had to say.

And this is part of what he had to say - In other words, if an HIV infected homosexual should use a condom, it may be a prelude to a moral awakening, Obviously male homosexuality is disorderd according to Natural Law, but if that disorder is assuaged by the use of a condom, then perhaps there is a slight improvement in that individuals moral behaviour and attitude.

There is a thread devoted to that specific topic **Pope says condoms sometimes permissible to stop AIDS **

Thank you. I just meant I came across the original article I read in the Sunday paper. However, since then, I did check other sources, one being “Renew America” which had a link to what the Pope actually said (in Light of the World) and other Catholic sources such as Jimmy Aiken.

renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/101121

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Could it not be argued that this woman buckled under the situation she found herself in and so did what she did to make herself feel better? In other words, she abandoned all hope because she saw none?

Sure. Anything can be argued, and I will leave it for others to argue it.

I wish I had the article, but I had read that newspaper some 30 years ago, and no longer have it.

What I saw was a woman who was driven to do a thing she hated, because of the greater horror and revulsion she felt KNOWING what the fate of these babies would be. She was remorseful about doing what she felt she had to do, and spent the rest of her life trying to make up for it. What more can you ask of her?

None of us, hopefully, have been or ever will be in her situation. I sincerely doubt that she committed horrible things because it made “herself feel better?” If needed, I will go before God and act as that woman’s advocate, on my dying day.

Soldiers are heroes when they throw themselves on hand grenades to save their mates. Isn’t that suicide? Didn’t that soldier lose hope in his situation? Maybe if he had only run away, the hand grenade might not have gone off. Maybe the others wouldn’t have been harmed, and he wasted his life?

Do you see where I’m headed, John?

 

[John21652]

Sure. Anything can be argued, and I will leave it for others to argue it.

I wish I had the article, but I had read that newspaper some 30 years ago, and no longer have it.

What I saw was a woman who was driven to do a thing she hated, because of the greater horror and revulsion she felt KNOWING what the fate of these babies would be. She was remorseful about doing what she felt she had to do, and spent the rest of her life trying to make up for it. What more can you ask of her?

None of us, hopefully, have been or ever will be in her situation. I sincerely doubt that she committed horrible things because it made “herself feel better?” If needed, I will go before God and act as that woman’s advocate, on my dying day.

Soldiers are heroes when they throw themselves on hand grenades to save their mates. Isn’t that suicide? Didn’t that soldier lose hope in his situation? Maybe if he had only run away, the hand grenade might not have gone off. Maybe the others wouldn’t have been harmed, and he wasted his life?

Do you see where I’m headed, John?

Did Jesus Christ commit suicide?

After all, he knew what was in store.

Or did he lay down his life for another?

I also doubt whether a soldier who dives onto a hand grenade consciously lays down his life. He makes a split second descision to protect someone else. Is that suicide?

However, the woman in question dliberately killed others to save them from supposed death. That is not laying down one’s own life for another. It is laying down one’s moral courage because it appears that all hope is lost.
What happened to her faith in God?

 

[John21652]

This is another sticky situation. There is a webpage about the trolley problem and various versions that get stickier and stickier.

In this case, my opinion is that the moral law would prevent the people on Track A from knowingly allowing the death of the person on Track B even to save themselves. Even if they are almost 100% sure the person on B would be killed by another train. It would be an overt act of commission that is morally wrong.

However, there may have been a greater good to save the others on Track A if the person with the switch were far apart from the others further down the track. The the intention could be to save the co-workers on A, so the diversion of the train to B may be considered the principle of the “least harm.”

God looks at our hearts, our intentions. If the choice in mind is merely to save our own lives (Track A), we might pay attention to the gospel that says, “He who would lose His life for My sake, shall find it.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Well, the example says we are stuck alongside our two workmates, so we either save them and ourselves by diverting the locomotive across to the other track.

Here’s what I’d do -

I’d divert the train aacross to the other track. Don’t forget, there is already a train hurtling towards the lone fellow on that second track and the example tells us it is overwhelmingly likly he is going to die anyway. So, by diverting the train from the track you are on, have you increased the chances that he will die? Probably not. If it would require devine intervention to derail one train, it will still require devine intervention to derail two trains. I doubt God would only half do the job, if that is what He is inclined to do! However, by diverting the train from your track, you do save your two workmates. That you save yourself is incidental, or should be, because, as you yourself have quoted, God looks at our hearts and intentions. Am I on the right track? (no pun intended!).

 

[4Horsemen]

Well, the example says we are stuck alongside our two workmates, so we either save them and ourselves by diverting the locomotive across to the other track.

Here’s what I’d do -

I’d divert the train aacross to the other track. Don’t forget, there is already a train hurtling towards the lone fellow on that second track and the example tells us it is overwhelmingly likly he is going to die anyway. So, by diverting the train from the track you are on, have you increased the chances that he will die? Probably not. If it would require devine intervention to derail one train, it will still require devine intervention to derail two trains. I doubt God would only half do the job, if that is what He is inclined to do! However, by diverting the train from your track, you do save your two workmates. That you save yourself is incidental, or should be, because, as you yourself have quoted, God looks at our hearts and intentions. Am I on the right track? (no pun intended!).

O.K., I reread your post about “The Runaway Trains” and it appears that only one person on Track A has the switch or control button to divert the train. So, I’d have to agree with you that the moral judgment, in this case, would require diverting the train to Track B, since it is inevitable that the worker on B would be killed anyhow by the oncoming train on that track. In this way, yes. . . you’d save yourself (incidently) as well as your two co-workers on Track A.

I don’t know if you looked at the link of various issues related to the trolley situation and other problems which are very interesting. In the instance above, what if there were no other train coming on Track B? Would you say it would be morally correct to divert the train to kill one co-worker instead of the train killing two and yourself? Would the principle of “least harm” apply?

The story could be changed somewhat so that there were no barriers on Track B, but a young chld was on the track with her (or his) foot stuck in the rails. Say you were radioed about it and had to make a decision whether or not to divert the train from A to B. Also, say that your two co-workers on A were convicts. Would that make any difference?

I’m just pointing out how there can be some twists and turns when it’s difficult to apply the moral law. Personally, I’d save the innocent child rather than my own life and the lives of the two other adults/convicts. As for the first example, since there were no other trains coming on B, I’d try to save as many people at once as possible.

 

[PJM]

=anthony022071;7229638]This thread continues a discussion on another thread about natural law and how it is discerned. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7207310#post7207310 My position is that natural law exists,that it is created by God and is contituted into man’s conscience,human nature and body,and that it can be discerned through reason. But since it is given by God,it ought to be understood in light of what we know about God and man through Catholic doctrine. When natural law is understood apart from God and his creation of man,it loses its authority as a concept. It becomes merely a matter of common sense,human feeling or sensibility,not divine commandment with judgement attending upon it. In the 17th and 18th centuries,philosophers understood natural law in a deistic or secular way,rather than in the way in which Catholic,scholastic philosophers understood it. They did this because of their dislike for scholastic philosophy,their preference for urbane pagan philosophy (especially Cicero and Seneca) and because the general tendency of the times was toward secularization. They thought that natural law was more credible as something inherent in humanity than as something to which God holds us accountable. But natural law did not really become more credible,it just lost its force as an idea. And in the course of the 19th century,philosophers ceased to take natural law seriously,because they thought along the lines of naturalistic historical process and evolution rather than the doctrine of creation. In the 20th century, anthropologists and scientists explained the moral sense as a product of human evolutionary process.
Even though it is possible to discern natural law through reason alone,it should also be understood in light of the Catholic doctrine of creation,simply because the doctrine is true and it is necessary for a more thorough understanding of natural law.

**Jer.31: 33 **“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

Certain ctions are so devoid of good, or merit that everyone has th ability to understand that they are evil acts: Abortion, murder, adultry, ruining someones Good name, denial of God are just a few examples…

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Did Jesus Christ commit suicide?

After all, he knew what was in store.

Or did he lay down his life for another?

I also doubt whether a soldier who dives onto a hand grenade consciously lays down his life. He makes a split second descision to protect someone else. Is that suicide?

However, the woman in question dliberately killed others to save them from supposed death. That is not laying down one’s own life for another. It is laying down one’s moral courage because it appears that all hope is lost.
What happened to her faith in God?

To a doubter, it might look as if Christ was committing suicide. Afterall, if He was God, the doubter might say, why didn’t He save us some other way? How does the doubter know that He laid down His life for another? What others?

We believe that Christ laid down His Life for others, because we have been given the Gift of Faith.

What should this woman done? You don’t like the reasons that she herself gave. What would you have done?

She never lost her faith in God, however, God did not save all of those poor souls, Jews, Christians, and otherwise, who begged Him to rescue them. But she kept her faith in God, because she knew she was doing a horrible thing, and prayed that she could make up for this before God.

If she had lost all hope in God, she would have simply killed herself. She didn’t, and she bore the guilt and horror of what she had felt she had to do, in mercy, for the rest of her life.

 

[John21652]

**Try this one **

• ** The Warsaw Ghetto Doctor**

In the late summer of 1942, 22 year old Adina Blady Szwajger was working as a doctor at Warsaw’s Children’s Hospital. It was no ordinary summer, though. Some 18 mnonths earlier, the Nazi occupiers of Poland had shut the gates on Warsaw’s Jewish population creating what is now known as the Warsaw ghetto. As a result, Szwajger had for at least a year worked in conditions of almost unimaginable suffering as the hospital filled with children dying of starvation and tuberculosis. In her memoir, she talks of “famished skeletons” lapping up the slops of a spilled soup pot from the floor; and of the attempt to live a “principled life” in circumstances of the utmost moral depravity.

But in August 1942, it became impossible to go on. The Germans had begun to round up the Jewish population, loading them into cattle trucks and shipping them off to the death camps, where their fate was to meet a grisly end. By this point, the hospital was no longer functioning as a hospital - there were “no children’s wards, just the sick, the wounded and the dying everywhere.”

The moment which came to define Szwajger’s life arrived when the Nazis turned up at the hospital, and began the brutal process of shutting it down. A nurse begged Szwajger to end her elderly mother’s life: “Doctor…I can’t do it. I beg you, please. I don’t want them to shoot her in bed, and she can’t walk.” Dr. Szwajger administered morphine, first attending to “families of staff.” Then she went to the ward which housed the smallest infants, and one by one gave each child a lethal dose. “Just as, during those two years of real work in the hospital, I had bent down over the little beds, so now I poured this last medicine into those tiny mouths…And downstairs, there was screaming because the…Germans were already there, taking the sick from the wards to the cattle trucks.” She told the older children “that this medicine was going to make their pain disappear…So they lay down and after a few minutes - I don’t know how many - but the next time I went into that room, they were asleep.”

Adina Szwajger took the lives of her young patients as the final act of what she saw as her duty of care, in order to spare them ignominious and certain death at the hands of the Nazis. But, of course, the infants and children did not and could not have consented. The issue, then, is whether she did the right thing.

Was she morally justified in taking the lives of her patients in order to save them from their fate at the hands of the Nazis?

 

[John21652]

**Try this one **

• ** The Warsaw Ghetto Doctor**

In the late summer of 1942, 22 year old Adina Blady Szwajger was working as a doctor at Warsaw’s Children’s Hospital. It was no ordinary summer, though. Some 18 mnonths earlier, the Nazi occupiers of Poland had shut the gates on Warsaw’s Jewish population creating what is now known as the Warsaw ghetto. As a result, Szwajger had for at least a year worked in conditions of almost unimaginable suffering as the hospital filled with children dying of starvation and tuberculosis. In her memoir, she talks of “famished skeletons” lapping up the slops of a spilled soup pot from the floor; and of the attempt to live a “principled life” in circumstances of the utmost moral depravity.

But in August 1942, it became impossible to go on. The Germans had begun to round up the Jewish population, loading them into cattle trucks and shipping them off to the death camps, where their fate was to meet a grisly end. By this point, the hospital was no longer functioning as a hospital - there were “no children’s wards, just the sick, the wounded and the dying everywhere.”

The moment which came to define Szwajger’s life arrived when the Nazis turned up at the hospital, and began the brutal process of shutting it down. A nurse begged Szwajger to end her elderly mother’s life: “Doctor…I can’t do it. I beg you, please. I don’t want them to shoot her in bed, and she can’t walk” Dr. Szwajger administered morphine, first attending to “families of staff.” Then she went to the ward which housed the smallest infants, and one by one gave each child a lethal dose. “Just as, during those two years of real work in the hospital, I had bent down over the little beds, so now I poured this last medicine into those tiny mouths…And downstairs, there was screaming because the…Germans were already there, taking the sick from the wards to the cattle trucks.” She told the older children that this medicine was going to make their pain disappear…“So they lay down and after a few minutes - I don’t know how many - but the next time I went into that room, they were asleep”

Adina Szwajger took the lives of her young patients as the final act of what she saw as her duty of care, in order to spare them ignominious and certain death at the hands of the Nazis. But, of course, the infants and children did not and could not have consented. The issue, then, is whether she did the right thing.

Was she morally justified in taking the lives of her patients in order to save them from their fate at the hands of the Nazis?

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

**Try this one **

• ** The Warsaw Ghetto Doctor**

In the late summer of 1942, 22 year old Adina Blady Szwajger was working as a doctor at Warsaw’s Children’s Hospital. It was no ordinary summer, though. Some 18 mnonths earlier, the Nazi occupiers of Poland had shut the gates on Warsaw’s Jewish population creating what is now known as the Warsaw ghetto. As a result, Szwajger had for at least a year worked in conditions of almost unimaginable suffering as the hospital filled with children dying of starvation and tuberculosis. In her memoir, she talks of “famished skeletons” lapping up the slops of a spilled soup pot from the floor; and of the attempt to live a “principled life” in circumstances of the utmost moral depravity.

But in August 1942, it became impossible to go on. The Germans had begun to round up the Jewish population, loading them into cattle trucks and shipping them off to the death camps, where their fate was to meet a grisly end. By this point, the hospital was no longer functioning as a hospital - there were “no children’s wards, just the sick, the wounded and the dying everywhere.”

The moment which came to define Szwajger’s life arrived when the Nazis turned up at the hospital, and began the brutal process of shutting it down. A nurse begged Szwajger to end her elderly mother’s life: “Doctor…I can’t do it. I beg you, please. I don’t want them to shoot her in bed, and she can’t walk” Dr. Szwajger administered morphine, first attending to “families of staff.” Then she went to the ward which housed the smallest infants, and one by one gave each child a lethal dose. “Just as, during those two years of real work in the hospital, I had bent down over the little beds, so now I poured this last medicine into those tiny mouths…And downstairs, there was screaming because the…Germans were already there, taking the sick from the wards to the cattle trucks.” She told the older children that this medicine was going to make their pain disappear…“So they lay down and after a few minutes - I don’t know how many - but the next time I went into that room, they were asleep”

Adina Szwajger took the lives of her young patients as the final act of what she saw as her duty of care, in order to spare them ignominious and certain death at the hands of the Nazis. But, of course, the infants and children did not and could not have consented. The issue, then, is whether she did the right thing.

Was she morally justified in taking the lives of her patients in order to save them from their fate at the hands of the Nazis?

By her faith formation in the Jewish faith, she may have been morally justified. Was she a Christian? If she was not a Catholic, I cannot judge her soul in a Catholic light. I cannot judge her soul at all, as I am not God. Only God can judge her. I can call her immoral by my standards, but that may be akin to calling George Washington the worst immoral man in the world, because he kept slaves in a time when it was considered moral even by Catholics.

If I were in her situation, I may have done the same thing. I don’t think I could sit there and watch the children suffer that much. Call me a coward–many have before.

You did not answer my question to you in my last post.

 

[John21652]

By her faith formation in the Jewish faith, she may have been morally justified. Was she a Christian? If she was not a Catholic, I cannot judge her soul in a Catholic light. I cannot judge her soul at all, as I am not God. Only God can judge her. I can call her immoral by my standards, but that may be akin to calling George Washington the worst immoral man in the world, because he kept slaves in a time when it was considered moral even by Catholics.

If I were in her situation, I may have done the same thing. I don’t think I could sit there and watch the children suffer that much. Call me a coward–many have before.

You did not answer my question to you in my last post.

This is a Natural Law thread. It should be possible to make a judgement regardless of whether or not Adina Blady Szwajger is Catholic, Jew or Calathumpian. The Jews believe in Natural Law and even if they didn’t, Natural Law is supposed to be written on the hearts of men by God. If you have it, you will be able to make a judgement on whether or not she was morally justified in doing what she did. you are not being asked to Judge her soul, only her actions.

As to your previous question, I’ll answer it after you answer this one.

By the way, it was not considered moral to own slaves when George Washington owned slaves. I’ll prove it later.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

This is a Natural Law thread. It should be possible to make a judgement regardless of whether or not Adina Blady Szwajger is Catholic, Jew or Calathumpian. The Jews believe in Natural Law and even if they didn’t, Natural Law is supposed to be written on the hearts of men by God. If you have it, you will be able to make a judgement on whether or not she was morally justified in doing what she did. you are not being asked to Judge her soul, only her actions.

As to your previous question, I’ll answer it after you answer this one.,br>
By the way, it was not considered moral to own slaves when George Washington owned slaves. I’ll prove it later.

Well, then I will say that according to my conscience, and my “natural law” (not the same as the Catholic Catechism or the Old Testament), I say that she was doing the moral thing. More than likely, I would do the same thing in her shoes. Prehaps God didn’t give me enough black and white and too much compassion and empathy. I do not look to men for my judgement, only to God.

And why must I expose myself to fire, by answering your question first?

 

[John21652]

Well, then I will say that according to my conscience, and my “natural law” **(not the same as the Catholic Catechism **or the Old Testament), I say that she was doing the moral thing. More than likely, I would do the same thing in her shoes. Prehaps God didn’t give me enough black and white and too much compassion and empathy. I do not look to men for my judgement, only to God.

And why must I expose myself to fire, by answering your question first?

If your natural law is different to the Catholic Catechism and operates only according to your conscience, then it is moral relativity you are espousing.
Moral relativity can lead to all sorts of weird and wondeful moralities.

CATHOLIC CATECHISM

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION ONE
MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
CHAPTER THREE
GOD’S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE

ARTICLE 1
THE MORAL LAW

**1950 **The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God’s pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. “Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law.”

 Alone among all animate beings, **man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason**, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

So again, was Adina Blady Szwajger morally justified in killing those babies and children?

 

[anthony022071]

I am an empath, and I can see myself in a few of these situations. They will keep me up with nightmares tonight.

I read about one female doctor who was rounded up by the Nazis for being a Jew. While she was interned in a camp, she aborted many babies for other women. The Nazis were performing hideous experiments on pregnant women, and torturing babies that they cut from the womb. She felt that she was preventing worst harm and pain to the mothers as well as the infants.

After the war she became an ob doctor. She said she felt a little more “forgiven” by God for every baby she brought into this world. She said she had felt horrible by what she felt like she had to do during the war, and was tormented by the memories. She never, ever commited an abortion again, and was most pro-life to the end of her days.

These are terrible things that we humans sometimes have to make choices with. Sometimes it is extremely hard to follow a law that says one cannot do a wrong to prevent a worse wrong. But I believe in a merciful God, Who will look at our souls when we ask Him for forgiveness.

It would have been better if she and the other women had prayed continually to God for help like Esther did in the Bible.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

It would have been better if she and the other women had prayed continually to God for help like Esther did in the Bible.

You will note that they didn’t just sit there praying; God called those women to action.

What about Judith, who killed Holofernes, as he lay sleeping? Didn’t she break the Natural Law and commit murder? Wasn’t even a fair fight, as he was murdered in his sleep!

In Judith chapter 13: 4-9, Judith calls upon God to give her strength to kill Holofernes.

She did what she thought was the moral right, to save her people. Why is she considered a holy woman, and these other two, you are condemning?

 

[PJM]

=Peggy in Burien;7283014]I am an empath, and I can see myself in a few of these situations. They will keep me up with nightmares tonight.

I read about one female doctor who was rounded up by the Nazis for being a Jew. While she was interned in a camp, she aborted many babies for other women. The Nazis were performing hideous experiments on pregnant women, and torturing babies that they cut from the womb. She felt that she was preventing worst harm and pain to the mothers as well as the infants.

After the war she became an ob doctor. She said she felt a little more “forgiven” by God for every baby she brought into this world. She said she had felt horrible by what she felt like she had to do during the war, and was tormented by the memories. She never, ever commited an abortion again, and was most pro-life to the end of her days.

These are terrible things that we humans sometimes have to make choices with. Sometimes it is extremely hard to follow a law that says one cannot do a wrong to prevent a worse wrong. But I believe in a merciful God, Who will look at our souls when we ask Him for forgiveness.

I suspect this too may have been for he “Greater Good” BUT am not positive of this… By intent if not by action.